The election of Donald Trump as president of the United States — a man who has praised dictators, encouraged violence among supporters, threatened to jail his rival, and labeled the mainstream media as “the enemy” — has raised fears that the United States may be heading toward authoritarianism.

It was only in the early 1970s — once the civil rights movement and the federal government managed to stamp out authoritarianism in southern states — that the country truly became democratic. Yet this process also helped divide Congress, realigning voters along racial lines and pushing the Republican Party further to the right. The resulting polarization both facilitated Trump’s rise and left democratic institutions more vulnerable to his autocratic behavior.

The safeguards of democracy may not come from the quarters one might expect. American society’s purported commitment to democracy is no guarantee against backsliding; nor are constitutional checks and balances, the bureaucracy, or the free press. Ultimately, it may be Trump’s ability to mobilize public support — limited if his administration performs poorly, but far greater in the event of a war or a major terrorist attack — that will determine American democracy’s fate.

The bulk of this particular article is behind a paywall, but similar concerns are elaborated in an article published a few months earlier.

Donald J. Trump’s election has raised a question that few Americans ever imagined asking: Is our democracy in danger?

The clearest warning sign is the ascent of anti-democratic politicians into mainstream politics. Drawing on a close study of democracy’s demise in 1930s Europe, the eminent political scientist Juan J. Linz designed a “litmus test” to identify anti-democratic politicians. His indicators include a failure to reject violence unambiguously, a readiness to curtail rivals’ civil liberties, and the denial of the legitimacy of elected governments.

Mr. Trump tests positive. In the campaign, he encouraged violence among supporters; pledged to prosecute Hillary Clinton; threatened legal action against unfriendly media; and suggested that he might not accept the election results.

This anti-democratic behavior has continued since the election. With the false claim that he lost the popular vote because of “millions of people who voted illegally,” Mr. Trump openly challenged the legitimacy of the electoral process.

Like a pickup basketball game without a referee, democracies work best when unwritten rules of the game, known and respected by all players, ensure a minimum of civility and cooperation. Norms serve as the soft guardrails of democracy, preventing political competition from spiraling into a chaotic, no-holds-barred conflict.

Among the unwritten rules that have sustained American democracy are partisan self-restraint and fair play.

Unlike his predecessors, Mr. Trump is a serial norm-breaker. There are signs that Mr. Trump seeks to diminish the news media’s traditional role by using Twitter, video messages and public rallies to circumvent the White House press corps and communicate directly with voters — taking a page out of the playbook of populist leaders like Silvio Berlusconi in Italy, Hugo Chávez in Venezuela and Recep Tayyip Erdogan in Turkey.

An even more basic norm under threat today is the idea of legitimate opposition. In a democracy, partisan rivals must fully accept one another’s right to exist, to compete and to govern. Democrats and Republicans may disagree intensely, but they must view one another as loyal Americans and accept that the other side will occasionally win elections and lead the country. Without such mutual acceptance, democracy is imperiled. Governments throughout history have used the claim that their opponents are disloyal or criminal or a threat to the nation’s way of life to justify acts of authoritarianism.

The risk we face, then, is not merely a president with illiberal proclivities — it is the election of such a president when the guardrails protecting American democracy are no longer as secure.

What we see in these two articles is a good example of what the Jewed media and academia refer to as “us versus them thinking” and “the politics of fear”, and routinely project entirely onto us, their White enemy. This particular message is aimed not at the masses but at their peers and allies in the Jewed elite. The message is that (((public support((( for )))authoritarianism((( threatens (((democracy))).

The Jewed elite speak to each other in code because they are aware their rule is illegitimate, based not on law or popular support but on double-talk. As “whites” they decry privilege, as Jews they decry oppression, and do both at the same time from inside the biggest social institutions, the most powerful corporations, and all the branches of government. This fraud can fly only so long as Jews recognize a racial-political line between themselves and Whites, and Whites do not.

The Jewed elite is nervous because many Whites already implicitly recognize what’s going on — the most obvious sign of which is the unpopularity of the Jewsmedia and its narrative. The Jews have long been warning that Trump is violating their norms, for example by breaking the main “unwritten rule” of anti-populist judeo-liberal democracy: Thou shalt not say what White voters want to hear.

And it’s no wonder that the Jewsmedia is unpopular with Whites. What we see in this instance is the usual Jewsmedia expression of fear and loathing directed not so much toward Trump as toward the White supporters he misleads and misrepresents. Between December and April Trump reneged on the campaign promises which most appealed to Whites, swamping his administration with Jews and globalist bankers who promptly convinced him to teach )))the world((( a lesson by hurling 59 Hebrew Hammers worth of (((democracy))) at )))authoritarian((( Syria. And though Trump shifted gears, the terms and tone of the disingenuous Jewsmedia narrative have not.

The most “basic norm” the Jews sense is “under threat today” is their most fundamental fakery, their crypsis. They can’t do what they do under scrutiny. It is only the conflation of Jews with Whites which enabled an increasingly Jewed elite, increasingly hostile to Whites, to slither into power in the first place. And their perverse con is only becoming more obvious amid the now daily hysterical screeching that “neo-nazi” “White supremacist” “anti-semites” are in the White House.

These “safeguards” and “guardrails” Jews refer to were constructed at the behest of Jews, for the benefit of Jews, the purpose being to keep the Jews safe from the Whites they have insinuated themselves among and have fed upon with impunity. They’re talking about what comes next, now that it appears these devices are failing.

War is the Jews’ harvest and their 23 skidoo. Not the end-game, just another essential stage in their lifecycle. After years of relentless organizing and lobbying, constantly crying about )))authoritarianism((( from the biggest megaphones their fake money can buy, they are aiming at orchestrating yet another Purim-fest from which they will profit in a very large way. Before the war even starts they’ve already pinned all the blame on someone else, and before the war is even over they’ll have laid the foundation for the next.

Whites must see this cycle to end it, and the Jews don’t want this cycle to end, thus don’t want Whites to see. Like Wilson and FDR before him, Trump is betraying his White supporters. War looms again. After more than a century the reason remains the same: To keep the world safe for the Jews.

1

Leave a Reply

Do not use crude language; it makes a bad impression or wastes our time deleting or editing it. Do not advocate violence or illegal acts. Please use proper English, including punctuation and capitalization; slovenly language either makes a bad impression or wastes our time fixing it. Please conduct yourself here with the same competence, civility, and care you would use if you were speaking in public or writing for publication and posterity — which you are. Comments that are crude or uncivil, with substantial errors, or which might harm the interests of National Vanguard or its readers, editors, or management may be edited or deleted.

This comment form is under antispam protection

1Comment authors

Recent comment authors

Do not use crude language; it makes a bad impression or wastes our time deleting or editing it. Do not advocate violence or illegal acts. Please use proper English, including punctuation and capitalization; slovenly language either makes a bad impression or wastes our time fixing it. Please conduct yourself here with the same competence, civility, and care you would use if you were speaking in public or writing for publication and posterity — which you are. Comments that are crude or uncivil, with substantial errors, or which might harm the interests of National Vanguard or its readers, editors, or management may be edited or deleted.

This comment form is under antispam protection

Subscribe

newestoldest

Notify of

cc

As a citizen of the South, I can say with accuracy that we fought against authoritarian rule, not for it. The Federals should stay on their side of the Potomac and sweep around their own doorstep.
The kinfolk states contended for a sharp racial adjustment during the civil rights wars that were directed at us.

Comments Archive

Today in History

17761776: Richard Henry Lee of Virginia presents the "Lee Resolution" to the Continental Congress. It reads in part: "Resolved, That these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, free and independent States, that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain is, and ought to be, totally dissolved. That it is expedient forthwith to take the most effectual measures for forming foreign Alliances." What has been done with regard to one tyranny, can be done again with regard to another.